immich_random_assets

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about read-only status, permissions, ordering/non-determinism, or pagination. Only the implicit 'Get' verb hints at a safe read operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and no padding. The trailing withImages sentence is slightly awkward but earns its place as a practical hint.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a tool whose return shape matters (are these full assets or just metadata/thumbnails?), the description leaves the agent guessing about what it actually receives. It should clarify the return payload and the effect of withImages=false.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented with defaults and max values. The description restates 'withImages=true to see them', which adds intent (images must be requested to be visible) but no detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get random photos from the library'), which clearly separates it from the search_* siblings that filter rather than sample. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Great for exploring or sampling' implies a usage context but never states when to prefer this over immich_search_smart or immich_get_asset, nor any exclusion. The guidance is suggestive rather than directive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.